San Antonio may scale back annexation plan

Brian Chessman speaks to the City Council on Wednesday to voice his opposition to annexation. He is in the process of closing on a home he’s building and didn’t factor in having to pay city property taxes if his property is annexed. The council discussed several annexation options. less

Brian Chessman speaks to the City Council on Wednesday to voice his opposition to annexation. He is in the process of closing on a home he’s building and didn’t factor in having to pay city property taxes ... more

Photo: Kin Man Hui /San Antonio Express-News

Image 2 of 5

Brian Chessman speaks to the City Council on Wednesday to voice his opposition to annexation. He is in the process of closing on a home he’s building and didn’t factor in having to pay city taxes if his property is annexed. The council discussed several annexation options. less

Brian Chessman speaks to the City Council on Wednesday to voice his opposition to annexation. He is in the process of closing on a home he’s building and didn’t factor in having to pay city taxes if his ... more

Photo: Kin Man Hui /San Antonio Express-News

Image 3 of 5

District 6 Councilmember Greg Brockhouse (far right) has said he wants residents to have the right to vote on annexation. On Wednesday, the City Council discussed several areas for possible annexation.

District 6 Councilmember Greg Brockhouse (far right) has said he wants residents to have the right to vote on annexation. On Wednesday, the City Council discussed several areas for possible annexation.

Photo: Kin Man Hui /San Antonio Express-News

Image 4 of 5

District 5 Councilmember Shirley Gonzales, shown in this Aug. 2 photo, went into labor Thursday morning. City officials cited her absence as a reason to delay the vote on the San Antonio Water System’s rate increases. They later said the delay was needed to give the council more time to study them. less

District 5 Councilmember Shirley Gonzales, shown in this Aug. 2 photo, went into labor Thursday morning. City officials cited her absence as a reason to delay the vote on the San Antonio Water System’s rate ... more

Photo: Kin Man Hui /San Antonio Express-News

Image 5 of 5

Mayor Ron Nirenberg (second from right) listens to citizens during a session Wednesday about annexation.

Mayor Ron Nirenberg (second from right) listens to citizens during a session Wednesday about annexation.

Photo: Kin Man Hui /San Antonio Express-News

San Antonio may scale back annexation plan

1 / 5

Back to Gallery

Trying to balance revenue concerns with protection of a military base, city staff urged council members Wednesday to abandon part of an annexation plan that would bring a number of small commercial corridors and enclaves into San Antonio.

Express Newsletters

Get the latest news, sports and food features sent directly to your inbox.

The discussion happened amid an ongoing fight at the Legislature in Austin, where lawmakers are pursuing bills that would give residents the right to vote on whether they want to be annexed by large cities such as San Antonio. Several council members Wednesday referenced that debate, which would completely overhaul Texas’ annexation law.

At their June 29 meeting, the last before San Antonio council members left for their July summer break, staff recommended the city annex nine areas that together total almost 20 square miles. Individually, each is far smaller than other annexations the city has more recently pursued.

Related

On Wednesday, city staff slightly changed course, recommending that the council only annex five of those areas: one along Babcock Road; commercial corridors along Potranco Road and West Loop 1604, near Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland; an area near Vance Jackson and Loop 1604; an area near Foster Road on the Northeast Side; and one near Interstate 10 East and Loop 1604.

All but one of those areas will result in a revenue gain for the city over 20 years, or won’t result in San Antonio losing money during that time.

The city would lose more than $86 million over two decades by adding the Potranco Road-West Loop 1604 corridors. Deputy City Manager Peter

said staff wants to annex this area anyway because of its close proximity to Lackland. The city has said it wants to retain the ability to manage development and land use near military installations, a major issue surrounding the legislation being floated in Austin.

However, the city recommended against annexing a tiny commercial corridor along I-10 West that isn’t far from Camp Bullis, a large Army training facility, but would result in the city losing $72 million over 20 years if it were added.

Zanoni said the city would be able to protect a larger area near Lackland than the one near Camp Bullis.

“We can only do so much,” he said. “With our budget we have to make a decision.”

Staff also recommended the city no longer pursue annexation of commercial corridors near Culebra Road and Alamo Ranch Parkway, and Wiseman Boulevard in fast-growing, far West Bexar County. The city would lose $25.7 million on those annexations over 20 years.

Parts of a ninth area that the city considered for annexation is actually within the jurisdiction of Hill Country Village, a suburban city along U.S. 281 surrounded by San Antonio. Zanoni said the city is talking with Hill Country Village about possibly taking over that area.

It wasn’t immediately clear Wednesday which direction council would take.

Mayor Ron Nirenberg said he was surprised the I-10 West commercial corridor had a negative revenue result. He also remained concerned that the San Antonio’s ordinances limiting development over the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone are more lax than the rules in the its extraterritorial jurisdiction, a 5-mile area that extends out from the city limits.

He said he was comfortable pursuing the staff’s recommendation as long as the area near Lackland was included.

Immediately after the meeting, the city held the first of several public meetings on the annexation plan. All nine areas were included in the presentation.

Seven people spoke, and six were against it. One of them was Brian Chessman, who is in the process of closing on a home he’s building off Wiseman Road in one of the areas staff has recommended the city not annex. Chessman factored county taxes into his decision to build in this new neighborhood for his family of six.

“If I have to pay city taxes, I will likely not be able to close on this home,” Chessman said.

Two hearings are scheduled for Wednesday: at 2 p.m., in front of the city’s Planning Commission; and at 6 p.m., again in front of City Council. Zoning Commission will vote on the annexations Aug. 15.

The city has scheduled a meeting for 7 p.m. Aug. 10 at Fair Oaks Ranch City Hall, because residents in the I-10 West corridor petitioned for a hearing in their area. Zanoni said this meeting could be canceled if the council agrees not to pursue this annexation area.

City Council will make its final decision Aug. 31. That means these annexations will not be affected by the legislation under consideration in Austin.

In Austin on Wednesday, more than a dozen homeowners, many from Bexar County, showed up at a four-hour House Land and Resource Management Committee hearing on HB 6, one of two bills that would give residents the right to vote on annexation. They warned annexations threaten to increase their tax bills without adding any benefits, and said homeowners deserve a vote on whether to be incorporated into a neighboring city.

“I feel like we’re getting bullied,” said Mike Mouser, fearful that San Antonio may soon annex his home in the Alamo Ranch development. Although staff in San Antonio recommended Wednesday against annexing a smaller commercial corridor near Mouser’s master-planned community, officials have not yet decided whether to pursue annexation of the larger, residential Alamo Ranch area.

HB 6 was widely opposed by municipal officials, including two from San Antonio, who testified they need annexation to manage city growth and, more important, to control development around military bases.

While the bill, by Rep. Dan Huberty, R-Houston, would allow for a half-mile buffer around military bases, San Antonio officials said that distance should be extended to five miles as recommended by a Joint Land Use Study.

“The military just wants to be able to train safely for their servicemen and -women and to protect the community,” said Juan Ayala, San Antonio’s director of military affairs.

The committee did not take action on HB 6 onWednesday.

HB 6, and SB 6, a similar bill in the Senate, would invalidate existing nonannexation agreements San Antonio has in place, including one the council adopted in March with residents who live along U.S. 281.

If the bills pass, it would not affect the smaller annexations council talked about Wednesday. Because each area has fewer than 100 residential properties, state law allows the city to move forward with the annexation process quicker, before any of the new laws go into effect. However, the bills being considered would eliminate this ability in the future.

If either bill passes, the annexation of a 15-square-mile area along Interstate 10 West in North Bexar County will likely go to a vote. The council voted last September to annex this area, home to about 13,000 people, but the annexation won’t be complete until 2019, making it subject to any laws passed this summer.